CMS-10398 (#39) 39 Protocol for Coverave States

OMB Control Number 0938-1148

Expiration date: { mm/dd/2015 } CMS staff to fill this in.

Expanding Coverage Learning Collaborative

State Participants

2015 Individual Discussion Guide

(45 minutes)

INTRODUCTION

Hello, I’m [NAME] from Mathematica Policy Research. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me. As part of the MAC LC project, Mathematica is assessing the LC experience. Through this assessment we will provide feedback that may be used to help CMS learn about the features of effective LCs and to improve the LC experience for states in the future. We’re collecting feedback from participants from the states, as well as from LC facilitators and the CMS subject matter experts associated with each LC. We’re interested in talking with you about your experiences as a participant with the Expanding Coverage LC.

This interview will cover the three-and-a-half years of the LC. We will not share interview notes with the LC facilitation teams, or other CMS staff, and we will not use direct quotes in any reports or briefing documents that result from the assessment activities. If it is okay with you, we’d like to record this interview for the purpose of completing our notes only. Do you have any objection to our taping of the discussion?

The discussion will last up to 45 minutes. We have a series of questions we would like to ask you, so to make sure we don’t take up too much of your time, we may re-direct the conversation at some points.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

A. Respondent Background and Role in the Expanding Coverage LC

Let’s do quick introductions.

1. Please tell us your name, organization, job title, and how long you have been with the organization.

2. When did you become involved in the Expanding Coverage LC?

B. Goals and Objectives

Now, let’s talk about your goals and objectives for participating in the Expanding Coverage LC.

1. Thinking back to when you first decided to participate in the Expanding Coverage LC, what did you hope to gain from participating?

   1. For example, were you interested in the Expanding Coverage LC primarily as an opportunity to hear about CMS policy and operational decisions; to provide feedback to CMS; to gain access to tools that would help you implement new policies, or to hear about other states’ approaches to policy and implementation?

2. How were the goals and objectives of the LC communicated to you? How well did they align with your own motivation for participating?

   1. Do you think the goals and objectives of the LC shifted over time? How did that affect the value of the LC experience for your state?

C. State Experience of LC Activities

Now we have a few questions about your engagement and experience with the LC.

1. How would you describe your state’s level of participation in the webinars and meetings convened by the Expanding Coverage LC?

   1. Of the [number] Expanding Coverage LC meetings and webinars held in the last [number of months since September 2014] months, about how many did your state attend? [If needed: These webinars covered the following topics: the PERM eligibility pilot test case outcomes tool, appeals, cost sharing, Medicaid premium assistance to purchase employer-sponsored insurance…]

      1. [If less than three-quarters:] What prevented or discouraged you from attending more meetings?

         1. [Prompt if needed:] Was it that meeting content was not relevant, for example, or were you not given enough notice?

   2. About what proportion of the approximately forty Expanding Coverage LC webinars and meetings held over the last three-and-a-half years has your state attended (e.g., a third, half, three-quarters)?

      1. [If less than three-quarters:] What prevented or discouraged you from attending more meetings?

         1. [Prompt if needed:] Was it that meeting content was often not relevant, for example, or were you not given enough notice?

   3. Have you presented material about your state’s policies or decisions at an LC meeting?

      1. If not, have you wanted to present material or felt that you had insights to share? What prevented you from sharing your insights?

   4. Have you asked questions during discussions?

      1. How helpful were the responses you received?

      2. If you have not asked questions, what prevented you from asking questions?

   5. Have you ever contacted another state, CMS, or the LC facilitators to follow up after an LC session? How helpful was that interaction?

2. Are you involved in your state’s Payment Error Rate Measurement eligibility pilot?

   1. [If yes:] Have you used the Payment Error Rate Measurement eligibility pilot test case comparison tool produced by the LC?

      1. How have you used these?

      2. Could these have been made more useful? How?

3. Have you used [other] tools produced by the LC? For example, the model Hospital Presumptive Eligibility application, the household composition and income training manual, or the Medicaid eligibility notices tool kit?

   1. How have you used the materials?

   2. Could these have been made more useful? How?

4. What could be done to enhance your level of engagement in the LC?

   1. Do you feel that you had sufficient notice about upcoming LC sessions so that appropriate staff from your state could be available to attend?

   2. Thinking about specific webinars, were you able to identify who should attend from the state, given the information provided in advance about the topics covered? [Interviewer note: Examples include the Medicaid and CHIP renewals webinar, the Hospital Presumptive Eligibility webinar, the “Coverage Coordination for Pregnant Women” webinar and the webinar on the PERM eligibility pilot test case outcomes tool.]

   3. Do you feel like you had sufficient opportunity to suggest topics that should be covered in LC sessions or by support tools?

5. How would you describe the interaction between Expanding Coverage LC states and CMS subject matter experts? Is it sufficient and productive?

   1. What supports/hinders this interaction?

6. How would you describe the interaction between LC states? What worked or did not work to promote a peer-to-peer learning environment?

   1. Would you be interested in engaging with other states through an online forum or document sharing tool? What aspects of such a forum or tool would make your active participation more likely (for example, a forum facilitator, e-mailed updates when a participant posts something)?

D. Benefits for States

1. In what ways did you benefit from participation in the LC? How well did the LC meet your goals and objectives? Please give specific examples.

2. What specific role can LCs play, in contrast to other kinds of technical assistance offered to states? How best can LCs compliment and not duplicate the assistance provided by state-led organizations, think tanks or other non-profits, such as the National Association of Medicaid Directors or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation?

3. Can you think of any ways the LC could be modified so that your state reaps additional benefits?

4. Looking back at the LC overall, what features or aspects worked well and would be important to incorporate in future LCs?

E. Suggested Improvements

Now, let’s wrap up.

1. Other than what you’ve already mentioned, are there any ideas you would like to share with me for improving the effectiveness of future LCs?

2. Thank you for taking the time to talk with us today. Is there anything else you would like to add before we end the discussion?

PRA Disclosure Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0938-1148. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Attn: PRA Reports Clearance Officer, Mail Stop C4-26-05, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.